Spring 2021 THE UMASS HISTORY JOURNAL VOLUME 5 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AMHERST i UNDERGRADUATE HISTORY JOURNAL ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS THE EDITORS: SEVIL USMANOVA JOHANNA GEREMIA MICHAEL TURNER FACULTY ADVISOR: PROFESSOR GARRETT WASHINGTON THE EDITORIAL BOARD WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE HISTORY DEPARTMENT AND ALL WHO HAVE SUBMITTED THEIR WORK TO THE UMASS AMHERST HISTORY JOURNAL. ii Undergraduate Editorial Board Johanna Geremia, Production Editor. Johanna is a senior History and German major and Vocal Performance minor with a primary interest in Medieval European history and literature. She is currently working on a capstone project focusing on female representation in the German epic poem, Der Nibelungenlied. After graduating, Johanna plans to attend graduate school in Europe to obtain a master’s degree in History. Michael Turner, Copy Editor. Michael is a senior double major in History and Classics. His undergraduate worK has focused primarily on Pre-Modern Atlantic Empires and Classical Civilizations. Intending to graduate with Departmental Honors, Michael is working to complete a senior thesis analyzing themes of British national identity in the personal correspondence of the 4th Earl of Chesterfield. Sevil Usmanova, Acquisitions Editor. Sevil is a junior History major. She intends to graduate as a member of Phi Alpha Theta History Honors Society. After graduating, she plans on enrolling in a dual graduate program for History and Education. Founded in 2016 by members of Phi Alpha Theta, the national history honor society, the UMass Undergraduate History Journal is devoted to showcasing the diverse historical work of undergraduate students. This publication includes essays and historical reflections written either within or outside the framework of undergraduate courses. The UMass Undergraduate History Journal is not an official publication of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. The views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Journal, the editors, or the University. All rights reserved. iii Contents Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................. i Battleground: How Rural Resentment Changed the Outcome of the 2016 Election ......... 1 ANTHONY COLACE A Global History of Astrology: Changes in Astrological Trends Through the Centuries .18 JOHANNA GEREMIA The Humanism of Dr. Peter Parker ................................................................................. 41 MICHAEL HOLMES Decolonization: The Impact, or Lack Thereof, of the End of the British Empire on Mainland Britain ............................................................................................................................... 56 CAROLINE O’NEILL The 1910 Cholera Outbreak: The Separate Realities of Britain and India ..................... 68 IAN ROWE Religiosity and its Role in Academia: Hindrance or Boon? ............................................. 84 SEVIL USMANOVA The Political and Environmental Effects of Oil in Nigeria ............................................... 97 HANNAH WHALEN 2021 University of Massachusetts Undergraduate History Journal Battleground: How Rural Resentment Changed the Outcome of the 2016 Election Anthony Colace Departments: Political Science and History, Classics Minor 2 Oftentimes when people think about conflict within the realm of politics, they immediately focus on the ongoing battles between Republicans and Democrats in Washington; however, the most consequential discord that decided the 2016 Election was, in actuality, between urban and rural voters in the Upper Midwest. With the spotlight of the 2020 Election focused on the battleground states of Michigan and Wisconsin, we have to look back four years to understand why these two states, which had voted Republican for the first time since 1988 and 1984, surprised the nation and decided the election.1 The story of these two states’ defiant acts is a story of their populace and how the rural-urban divide had reached a point of climax. President Trump appealed to rural counties throughout the country, but his ability to get through to rural voters in the Upper Midwest proved to be the decisive factor in the election. The susceptibility of rural Midwestern voters to become true undecided voters in 2016 materialized through a combination of factors that focused on the emerging division between rural and urban Midwesterners, which ultimately decided the election. The “why” behind the President’s victory is, of course, a complicated question to answer; however, it becomes clearer when we further investigate what Katherine Cramer calls “rural resentment.” Through her study and focus of people living throughout different parts of Wisconsin, Cramer discovered two common themes: “a significant rural-versus-urban divide and the powerful role of resentment.”2 She goes on to further this form of resentment by saying “disagreements about basic political principles can be rooted in something even more fundamental: ideas about who gets what, who has power, what people are like, and who is to blame.”3 The focal point for Upper Midwest voters seemingly shifted from partisan politics to a pushback of the societal norms 1 “Michigan Presidential Election Voting History,” 270toWin, 2020, https://www.270towin.com/states/Michigan. 2 Katherine Cramer, The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker, (The University of Chicago Press, 2016), 5. 3 Cramer, The Politics of Resentment, 5. 3 which those living in rural areas felt favored urban parts of the state. The bottom line became this: “what might seem to be a central debate about the appropriate role of government might at base be something else: resentment toward our fellow citizens.”4 This type of division speaks directly to the rhetoric that has plagued the cohesiveness of the American public for generations. Even before the modern era of partisan discord, there was disunity and discord that shrouded the positive, connective virtues of our nation. The aforementioned type of divisive rhetoric may seem commonplace at the end of a presidential administration that thrived off of negative magniloquence, but it is surprising to see it come from the American people even before obstruction and absurdity became the backbone of daily American political news. A distinction between the urban and rural populations must be made to understand why the electoral outcomes of each state were so dramatically affected by their divide. First, we need to define what urban and rural areas are. For perspective, “the U.S. Census Bureau identifies two different kinds of urban areas: ‘Urbanized clusters’ with 2,500 to 49,999 residents, and ‘urbanized areas’ with populations of 50,000 or more. All non-urbanized land area — any place that isn't part of a city or town of at least 2,500 people — is considered rural.”5 Wisconsin has a rural population of around 1.5 million. Despite this being a large number in proportion to the overall state population, it is shrinking. At the time of the 2016 Election, 40 of the 72 counties in Wisconsin had a smaller population than it had during the 2012 Election.6 The shrinking rural counties coupled with Wisconsin’s record 70% urban population created a culture shift that divided 4 Ibid. 5 Malia Jones, “Putting Rural Wisconsin on the Map: Understanding Rural-Urban Divides Requires a Complex Spectrum of Definitions,” Wiscontext, November, 2016, https://www.wiscontext.org/putting-rural-wisconsin-map. 6 Todd D. Milewski, “Wisconsin Population Trends Show Urban Areas Growing, Rural Areas Shrinking,” The Cap Times, March, 2016. https://madison.com/ct/news/data/wisconsin-population-trends-show-urban-areas-growing- rural-areas-shrinking/article_96978d1b-31c0-5def-8715-efde4e3700aa.html. 4 urban and rural people further. This contributes to Cramer’s idea of “rural consciousness,” which she defines as: an identity as a rural person that… includes a sense that decision makers routinely ignore rural places and fail to give rural communities their fair share of resources, as well as a sense that rural folks are fundamentally different from urbanites in terms of lifestyles, values, and work ethic. Rural consciousness signals an identification with rural people and rural places and denotes a multifaceted resentment against cities.7 This is a dramatic development Cramer points out, one that speaks volumes when we contextualize it in terms of the 2016 Election. Secretary Hillary Clinton was the first presidential nominee since Richard Nixon in 1972 to not visit the state of Wisconsin even one time during the campaign circuit.8 This feeds directly into the idea that “decision makers routinely ignore rural places” and contributed to the growing disdain the rural population held towards those in urban ones. Couple Clinton’s lack of presence with President Trump’s persistence in the state, continually making trips to rural areas, and the idea that rural voters are ignored was realized. President Trump’s visits and rallies have shown to be a successful way of mobilizing and exciting his voting base; however, it would be naive to think that this was the only factor in rural voters shifting partisan lines. With urban areas seemingly guaranteed to vote Democratic (with Milwaukee and Madison having a 300,000-vote difference in favor of Clinton) rural areas could possibly have used the Republican ticket as a means of rebellion against the wishes of urban residents. Cramer